By David Howell, November 7th, 2011 
Not so long ago, during the first several decades of the post-war era, the American dream of a broad and growing middle class was a significant reality. But since the 1970s the shape of the American distribution of income has steadily become more like an hourglass: as the middle has collapsed, large numbers of workers earn very low wages and at the other end of the scale, very few take home gigantic sums.
Figure 1 shows the extraordinary reallocation of national resources from the bottom 80 percent of the population to the top 1 percent, while those in between (81st-99th) have, as a group, shown no change in their share of total income.
FIGURE 1
Source: CBO Report “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007”
Not surprisingly, over the last three decades many households in the bottom 80 percent have faced sharp declines in their standard of living as the costs of health care, higher education, food and energy have risen far faster than the wage check. The result has been the accumulation of unprecedented levels of mortgage, credit card, and student debt.
I have argued that the roots of the economic crisis can be found in the shift in economic thinking and public policy toward free market fundamentalism in the 1970-80s, which fueled the rise in debt, financial instability, and extreme inequality. We’ve seen a toxic mix of financial deregulation, evisceration of protective labor market institutions (like collective bargaining and the minimum wage), a political system corrupted by campaign contributions, and an increasingly polarized education system that performs poorly for most of those in the 80 percent and terribly for the most disadvantaged communities.
But this is not at all the conventional wisdom. Rather, it has become widely accepted that the government is the root cause of the economic crisis of 2008-11 and the decline in living standards for the vast majority. The problem in this conservative vision is too much regulation, too much taxation, too much encouragement of home . . .
Read more: The Metrics of Protest: Extreme Inequality and the Payoff to College Degrees
By David Howell, October 31st, 2011 
Occupy Wall Street protests have spread across the country behind the rallying cry that the “99 percent” have been left behind. There is a sense of outrage that the “system” is not just rigged in favor of the elite – something like the top 1% – but has spun out of control, leading to an accelerating concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few.
Wage stagnation, the explosion of health and education costs as the American welfare state shrinks, and above all the financial manipulation of debt has generated extraordinary profits on Wall Street and massive indebtedness and housing foreclosures on Main Street. Losses from outrageous risk-taking by too-big-to-fail financial institutions are made good by the taxpayer, who is told there is no alternative.
This new gilded age political-economic system can be thought of as the interlocking trifecta of a mostly degraded and increasingly dual educational system, a financial system that became mostly unregulated by either law or social norms, and a political system increasingly corrupted by money.
The educational system has promoted a meritocracy of cumulative advantage. The vast majority of American students experience primary and secondary schools during which they fall far behind their peers in much of the rest of the developed (and even less-developed) world, and then face costs of post-secondary education that produce a level of debt that cannot possibly be repaid out of earnings. But the elite reproduces itself with an ability to pay for college and graduate school educations whose superiority has steadily grown, while at the same time feeling entitled since the educational process has also become extraordinarily competitive.
The financial sector was systematically deregulated as free market orthodoxy took off in the 1980s. This deregulation served to extract resources from the “real” economy and concentrated it in the bank accounts of a tiny elite, who are increasingly those same victors of the Darwinian educational competition. As the concentration of income at the very top of the distribution proceeded in the 1990s-2000s, . . .
Read more: The Metrics of Protest: “99 Percent”
By Richard Alba, July 20th, 2011 
The right, as has been frequently observed of late, has developed an “alternative-reality” view of how we have arrived at our current budget-deficit impasse, placing the blame squarely on the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. A runaway federal budget since 2009 is the key element in their story. In a July 15th editorial (“The Obama Downgrade”), The Wall Street Journal states this view succinctly:
“The early George W. Bush years saw spending bounce up to a plateau of roughly 20% of GDP, but no more than 20.7% as recently as 2008. Then came the Obama blowout, in league with Nancy Pelosi’s Congress. With the recession as a rationale, Democrats consciously blew up the national balance sheet, lifting federal outlays to 25% in 2009, the highest level since 1945.”
The editorial is accompanied by a chart to illustrate the basic claim–witness the remarkable uptick of the curve between 2008 and 2009:
At first sight, the chart appears to sustain the WSJ charge and to indicate that federal spending under Obama is of a different order of magnitude from the past. For a moment, it shook my own antipathy to the Republican position; maybe, in all fairness, the blame deserves to be more evenly divided between the two sides of the political aisle. My curiosity aroused, I probed more deeply into the numbers (which come from the OMB website). I’d like to share what I discovered. I make no claims about any special knowledge of the intricacies of the federal budget, just an affinity with numbers.
If you have followed me this far, you may have guessed what is coming—the discovery of a deceptive use of data. It begins with a disturbing piece of disingenuousness, if not dishonesty, in the WSJ editorial, which places the responsibility for remarkably high level of fiscal year (FY) 2009 expenditures entirely at Obama’s door. But a federal fiscal year begins on October 1 of the prior year, and the Bush White House was therefore the source of the FY 2009 budget passed by Congress and responsible for spending some of the money. The budget as proposed authorized $3.1 . . .
Read more: Pushing Back Against the Right’s Narrative on the Budget
By William Milberg, April 12th, 2011 
The headlines this week were devoted to the high-stakes drama in D.C. that led to (literally) an 11th hour deal to avert a federal government shutdown and an $38 billion spending cut for 2011-2012. But the real news was that the 2012 Presidential election was effectively thrown to the Democratic incumbent (who also announced the launch of his campaign this week) when the leading fiscal policy visionary on the Republican side issued his long-term plan for the role of government over the next ten years. Congressman Ryan’s plan is so extreme in its proposed cutbacks on health insurance coverage and so regressive in its proposed reform of income and corporate taxes that it leaves most of the American political spectrum open to President Obama for the taking. He will no doubt begin the journey to this vast expanse of political turf with his speech on Wednesday.
Ryan’s plan has been much discussed in the press. It calls for a privatization of Medicare, with drastic reductions in funding. The key will be in how this funding reduction is distributed, and there is no indication that it would be done in a progressive way. This the major fault line of the plan, that it would put an even greater burden on the poor and middle class in accessing health care than is the case today. The plan calls for reducing the income tax on the richest individuals and corporations to the extremely low level of 25%. Finally, the projected effect of the plan on budget deficits hinges on wildly unrealistic assumptions that have already been questioned by the Congressional Budget Office.
We are in such a moment of political frenzy over the fiscal deficits that we often forget two basic economic fundamentals about deficits. The first is that deficits are not a function simply of spending levels but mainly of economic growth rates, since it is these that largely determine revenues. The second is that shrinking deficits generally reduce the economic growth rate and slow the creation of jobs.
. . .
Read more: Obama Wins!!
|
Blogroll
On the Left
On the Right
|